New Bukhari Centre Piece Carpets & Interior /Break the boundaries

  • Home
  • New Bukhari Centre Piece Carpets & Interior /Break the boundaries

New Bukhari Centre Piece Carpets & Interior /Break the boundaries Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from New Bukhari Centre Piece Carpets & Interior /Break the boundaries, News & Media Website, .

06/04/2023

Hi everyone! 🌟 You can support me by sending Stars – they help me earn money to keep making content that you love.

Whenever you see the Stars icon, you can send me Stars.

15/09/2021
"While some opposition leaders chose to boycott Duda’s inauguration, other MPs attended, wearing rainbow masks and brigh...
10/08/2020

"While some opposition leaders chose to boycott Duda’s inauguration, other MPs attended, wearing rainbow masks and bright colors to express their support for Poland’s LGBTQ community, whom Duda actively campaigned against."

A group of Polish opposition MPs wore the rainbow colors of the LGBT flag in protest against President Andrzej Duda at his swearing-in ceremony on Thursday.

https://nayadaur.tv/2020/08/girl-transman-marriage-case-neha-divorces-husband-to-save-him-from-police-harassment/?fbclid...
07/08/2020

https://nayadaur.tv/2020/08/girl-transman-marriage-case-neha-divorces-husband-to-save-him-from-police-harassment/?fbclid=IwAR1t2_JTcJxutCo3SLO12dE0_i8LlRehNlf9ivddoj3urneHSgSBhpAD-1k

9SharesIn contrast to media reports regarding an alleged ‘same-s*x’ marriage between two women, Naya Daur has learned that Akash Ali, who is being portrayed as a woman, is actually a transgender man. In a response submitted to the court, Neha maintained Akash was a man in accordance with the law...

Michael Kirby: the rainbow in Asia and the fight for gay rights in our regionMichael Kirby Michael Kirby is a Friend of ...
27/07/2020

Michael Kirby: the rainbow in Asia and the fight for gay rights in our region
Michael Kirby Michael Kirby is a Friend of The Conversation.
Visiting Professorial Fellow, UNSW

Disclosure statement
Michael Kirby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
On November 15, 2017, I received the welcome wake-up call at my hotel in Bangkok. It was my partner of 48 years, Johan, phoning to tell me of the outcome of the “postal survey”, just announced, in favour of an Australian law on same-s*x marriage.

The vote (61.6% yes; 38.4% no) confirmed countless opinion polls. So, it was not really surprising. Such polling is pretty accurate now and could have been conducted for a fraction of the costs of the postal vote.

However, the flawed process demanded by the government had a silver lining. It propelled the federal parliament to do what 25 other countries had achieved, many of them long ago: to enact marriage for people who happened to be gay.

The legislation was finally passed on December 7, 2017, by overwhelming votes of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It had taken an awful long time.

I was in Bangkok for a conference on a rather more pressing and urgent, but connected, subject.

The meeting had been convened by the Asia Pacific Coalition on Male S*xual Health (APCOM). It was celebrating its tenth anniversary. It invited me to reflect on the struggles faced in Asia and the Pacific Islands to overcome violence and discrimination against the LGBTIQ minority: g**s and trans people in the most populous countries on earth.

As I reflected on the arguments that had just been addressed in Australia, to oppose or delay gay marriages, I had plenty of time to consider the even more heroic struggles of the mostly young, multi-racial, multi-religious participants who were surrounding me.

Their struggles involved, literally, matters of life and death. Not all the news from their region was uplifting and encouraging. I was touched that they interrupted their program and asked me to tell the story about how marriage for gay and trans people in Australia was achieved. They hoped to draw from that story a message of encouragement for themselves.

Of course, I had to warn the participants of the peculiarities of the Australian scene and the need for caution in translating our delayed achievement of marriage rights in Australia to apply in the much more hostile environment of Asia.

People celebrate after the results of the postal survey on same-s*x marriage were announced. AAP
Australia’s historical bias against gay men
In Australia, we had begun, as many of their countries did, with the same English legal heritage. It was biased against gay men.

But the process of reform had started with the change of the criminal law in 1974 in Don Dunstan’s South Australia. Until the criminal laws were changed, it was difficult or impossible to secure effective laws prohibiting discrimination, let alone laws providing for marriage. That was literally icing on the cake.

In many of the countries represented at the Bangkok conference (Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan and Singapore) the criminal law continues to punish g**s. Getting rid of those laws was proving extremely difficult both because of religious and cultural conservatism.

Throughout much of Asia and the Pacific, the victims of stigma did not have the astonishing spectacle of religious opponents solemnly denying homophobia while urging that we should do hostile things. In much of Asia, Islamic, Christian and other religious leaders outdo each other in exposing frank and honest homophobia. In many places, they whip up hostility and promote deadly violence.

At the beginning of the Bangkok conference, two days before the announcement in Australia, the opening event had honoured heroes in the struggle in Asia and the Pacific.

Awards were given to seven “heroes”. The winners were announced by DĂ©dĂ© Oetomo, a leader of gay and trans equality in Indonesia, who is the president of APCOM. The heroes were gathered from across the countries of Asia and the Pacific. They reduced 350 nominations to seven winners. But, in truth, they were all heroes.

From Malaysia, Khartini Slamah was named Transgender Hero. For more than 30 years she has done dedicated work for health and civil rights of transgender people.

The Community Hero award went to Chi Chia-Wei. He was the acclaimed campaigner in Taiwan whose successful struggle before that country’s highest court secured a clear holding by the court that the denial of marriage equality was contrary to the constitutional obligation of the equal treatment of all citizens.

This was a first for Asia, although the issue has been on the political agenda in Nepal and Vietnam for a decade. As happened decades earlier in South Africa, the Taiwan Constitutional Court gave the lawmakers a deadline to enact a law conforming to its holding.

The HIV Hero award was specially moving because no-one in the audience who had lived through the early burdens of HIV on gay men would not have lost friends, or known of suffering by the combined power of the HIV virus and ongoing community stigma. That award went to Gautam Yadav for his exceptional work in India as an activist, personally living openly with HIV and as role model for young people facing that predicament in India and the region.

Awards also went to outstanding scientists working in Thailand for their work as community health advocates.

From Pakistan, where there is not only the inherited criminal law combined with enormous religious hostility, I had the honour to present the Social Justice Hero award to Qasim Iqbal. He was recognised for his unflinching advocacy of gay and trans health and rights in Pakistan.

The award for the most Heroic Community Organisation was probably the most difficult to select. The room was full of activists from civil society bodies who are standing up and facing down hatred every day of their lives – nowhere more so than in Bangladesh, where the Bandhu Social Welfare Society was named the winner.

Ashok Row Kavi, a long-time advocate from India, was honoured with a special prize for extraordinary achievement over 40 years of advocacy on gay and trans rights and HIV needs.

Indian gay rights activist Ashok Row Kavi. Reuters
Asia still needs champions of gay rights
These names will mean little to an Australian audience. However, with every word of these names comes a story of unmatched courage, frequently in the face of murderous hostility.

Nowadays, in Australia and New Zealand, it does not take any special courage for an adult gay, man or le***an to stand up and say “I am gay”. “I did not choose it any more than you chose your s*xual orientation or gender identity and it cannot be changed. So get over it.”

But in Asia and the Pacific, it usually takes super courage. Often the rewards are tiny and they are slow in coming. No-one enters this space in the hope of a moment of glory at a conference in Bangkok.

Still, for most of Asia, this is a dangerous space. Australians will be heroes if they recognise the high priority of supporting and encouraging those who are trying to get to first base in the countries of the region closest to us.

Of course, there has been some progress – precious little in the legislatures of Asia and mostly in the courts and civil society.

In Hong Kong, armed with a human rights gift from the departing British colonial power, the Court of Final Appeal upheld the basic right of trans citizens to marry and directed local lawmakers to bring the law into line.

In India, a strong decision of the Delhi High Court struck down the colonial criminal laws against g**s, only to be overturned soon after by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Now that decision is itself under further review. Strong recent judicial statements in India appear to make it likely that the Delhi High Court’s orders will be reinstated.

Leaders of the Indian legal profession, briefed by an unyielding civil society, have persisted with their challenges in the courts of India. Those courts have earlier upheld trans rights. With a socially conservative government, only the courts will defend rights of g**s with legal equality. Looking to parliament for action is hopeless.

In Nepal, the old criminal laws copied from British India had been struck down by the courts. The same happened earlier in Fiji.

Modern charters of rights have frequently provided legal arguments for g**s and trans litigants claiming only to be treated the same way as other citizens.We never had an equality clause in our Constitution in Australia. But in Asia they have it and are using it.

In many societies of Asia and the Pacific, criminal laws are only part of the problem.

In Japan, where there are no criminal laws inherited from the British, bullying of young gay and trans pupils at school for “disturbing the harmony of the class” present an obstacle in some ways more insidious than reforming criminal laws.

China repealed the “hooligan” offence previously used to harass g**s. It has also prohibited conversion therapy, which used to be the demand of religious groups even in Australia – worthless and damaging though it was.

In South Korea there are no general criminal laws against g**s. However, a special law targets g**s in the military. As all young men must undergo military service, this exposes a vulnerable group to special pressure. The new president, Moon Jae-in, told an election rally in April 2017 that he was “opposed to and did not like” homos*xuality.

Subsequently, he backed off these statements and apologised for “hurting feelings” by words said in an election campaign. Meantime, a newly elected National Assembly in South Korea placed the military rule on the agenda and summoned a conference to address the issue.

So, things may change. But South Korea has other problems on its mind just now.

Serious opposition to reform still to be overcome
In addition to the remarkable organisations gathered at the APCOM conference in Bangkok and in many earlier and later meetings throughout the region, agendas for action have been planned.

Activists learn from each other. They are increasingly supported by the key United Nations agencies that have now entered this field. These include the United Nations Development Program, whose interest was enlarged when Helen Clark took over as administrator. She served with great distinction.

But also the high commissioner for human rights, Prince Zeid al-Hussein, has been forthright in taking up this cause. Like the now-retired UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, he reminds everyone of the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Like Ban Ki-Moon, Prince Zeid asks the sceptics and the opponents of gay and trans rights: “What is your difficulty with the phrase "all persons”? How can you exclude gay and trans persons from their fundamental rights as human beings?

UNAIDS, UNICEF, UNESCO and other UN agencies are becoming increasingly engaged in this struggle. They give strength and reassurance that the activists are not alone; that they have the support of the UN human rights treaties; and that, in the end, they will prevail although the odds may presently seem daunting.

For all that, the situation in the region is often fraught and sometimes deadly.

When the UN Human Rights Council in 2016 appointed an independent expert to report to it on violence and discrimination on the grounds of s*xual orientation and gender identity, there was great opposition to the vote in the council.

Not content, the opponents challenged the council’s decision in the Third Committee of the General Assembly, to which the council must report.

The vote in that committee was 84 nations in favour of the mandate, 77 against, and 17 abstentions. It was a close-run thing. Fifteen countries of the Asia-Pacific region voted against.

Not satisfied with this outcome, the opponents to the mandate, encouraged by conservative states, the Holy See and the International Conference of Islamic States, took the challenge to the floor of the General Assembly. Having lost there, they repeated the challenge in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly (Budget). When they lost there, they repeated the challenge in the Plenary of the General Assembly.

Their opposition extended even to the study of violence and discrimination against people on the basis of their s*xual orientation and gender identity. It is remarkable that so many countries could happily condone unredressed violence. Yet that is the case in many nations of our region. We had better face up to this reality.

While there have been some affirmative changes, there have also been even more backward steps.

Indonesia, which previously has no general criminal law against g**s because of its Dutch legal heritage, has now adopted such laws in Aceh. Two young gay men were recently caned in public, with 100 strokes each, for consensual adult s*xual conduct.

Islamist politicians are encouraging a change in the previously tolerant approach in Indonesia. This is serious not only for human rights of those affected, but also for the outreach policies that are essential for successful strategies in that country against the spread of HIV.

In Singapore, the courts have failed to provide constitutional protection. Modern and progressive it may seem on the surface, but Singapore voted against the mandate of the Human Rights Council.

Brunei has restored the death penalty for adult consensual same-s*x activity.

And, in Bangladesh, two young men who established a gay newsletter were hacked to death in their home. No-one has been brought to justice.

Bangladesh is a violent and cruel place for g**s and trans people. The bedrock of prejudice in most of these countries remains the unreformed criminal law, inherited from Britain, which they retain and nurture for prejudice and stigma, 60 years after the world came to know how irrational and unscientific such prejudice and stigma are.

A man is whipped in public as punishment for being in a same-s*x relationship in Indonesia. AAP
So what can be done in our region?
This is an urgent question – particularly in the countries of south Asia where the violence is the daily companion in life for gay and trans people.

Lawyers and the other experts in their professional bodies need to step up the demands for reform. Among lawyers there has been a lot of progress since, in 1988, the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva decided to add homos*xual rights to the program of that global lawyers’ body.

Now, LawAsia, the International Bar Association, the Commonwealth Law Association and Human Rights Watch are all demanding action in bringing the message into the influential judiciary and the legal profession so that they will see the way their countries look to others that have made large strides in recent years.

Embassies of countries that have made great strides can reach out to, and give support, to the heroes of civil society beyond the embassy wall. Many of the participants at the conference in Bangkok told of how empowering it was for them to receive invitations to events to mark important days in the gay and trans calendar.

In Bangkok, as has been regularly done, the Australian Embassy invited the leaders of the APCOM conference to a diplomatic reception to show solidarity and friendship. In some countries the American Embassy has flown the rainbow flag on key dates, so all who pass-by will get the message that a universal movement is underway. And it will not be easily stopped.

Because so many of the oppressive states are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, steps should be taken urgently to place this issue on the agenda for the upcoming CHOGM meeting. This was recommended in an advisory report on which I served in 2011. But still, the Commonwealth is among the worst silent outposts of violence and discrimination where this ground is concerned.

Transnational corporations increasingly have strong policies of outreach and inclusion for their gay and trans employees. In part they do this because research shows that it is good for business. In countries like Japan, South Korea, India and even China, these corporations will be in the vanguard for securing local reform.

In some countries, the American Embassy has flown the rainbow flag on key dates as an act of solidarity. Reuters
Leaders needed to end LGBTIQ violence
Gay and trans leaders must themselves reach out to religious groups and enlightened faith leaders to speak up for core values, such as an end to violence and to discover love for one another.

If this could be done in Australia it can be done elsewhere in our region. It will take time. But the dialogue must be undertaken.

And the leaders of the United Nations and of member nations that have seen the light on the irrationality must make the rainbow part of their agenda.

Australia, freshly redeemed with the shockingly delayed marriage equality, should now lift its voice as a full member of the Human Rights Council. This should be a cornerstone of the policies for progress in human rights.

Just as we earlier made progress against racial stigma, gender inequality, disability discrimination, and Indigenous neglect, Australians also should honour the heroes for gay and trans equality in Asia and the Pacific. Their struggle puts our recent achievement of marriage equality in proper focus. Their struggle requires great heroism. We should offer the hand of friendship and support.

One day the violence and discrimination will be finished in Asia and throughout our region. But meantime there is a need for heroes – and a need for Australians who are their supporters and friends.

One day the violence and discrimination will be finished in Asia and throughout our region – but in the meantime, there is a need for heroes.

24/07/2020

thank you for helping us reach 500 likes in just 3 days
the break the boundaries family is getting bigger♄♄

‘Gay gene’ search reveals not one but many – and no way to predict s*xualityAuthorBrendan ZietschARC Future Fellow, The ...
22/07/2020

‘Gay gene’ search reveals not one but many – and no way to predict s*xuality
Author
Brendan Zietsch
ARC Future Fellow, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement
Brendan Zietsch receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is senior author on the paper discussed.

It has long been clear that a person’s s*xual preference – whether they prefer male or female s*xual partners, or both – is influenced by his or her genetic makeup. The most straightforward evidence for this is that s*xual preference is more likely to be the same in identical twin pairs, whose genetic makeup is identical, than in non-identical twin pairs, who share only around 50% of their genetic makeup.

What has been elusive is knowledge of what specific gene, or genes, are involved. A 1993 study found male s*xual preference was influenced by a particular gene on the X chromosome, which the media naturally dubbed the “gay gene”. But a later study did not replicate this finding, and subsequent follow-ups yielded mixed results.

Read more: Born this way? An evolutionary view of 'gay genes'

The problem was that these studies were too small to draw confident conclusions. There are millions of parts of our DNA that commonly differ between people. That means finding the genes associated with s*xual preference is like finding a needle in a haystack.

So an international team of researchers, which I led, set out to tackle this problem. Our results are published today in Science.

Forceful approach
Our approach was simple: brute force. All else being equal, the larger a study, the more confident we can be in the results. So instead of sampling a few hundred or a few thousand individuals – as in previous genetic studies on s*xual preference – we used a sample of nearly half a million.

To obtain such a large sample, we used data that had been collected as part of much broader projects. These included DNA data and responses to questionnaires from participants in the UK (as part of the UK Biobank study) and the US (as part of data collected from customers of the commercial ancestry firm 23andMe who consented to answering research questions about s*xuality).

The downside of using these huge data sets was that the studies were not specifically designed to find genes for s*xual preference, so we were limited by the questions participants happened to have been asked about their s*xual behaviour. For both UK Biobank and 23andMe, participants reported whether they had ever had a same-s*x s*xual partner.

A person’s DNA essentially consists of millions of letters of code, and the letters differ among different individuals. So, to make a complicated story short, the next step was to test at every DNA location whether one letter was more common in participants who reported any same-s*x partners than in those who reported only opposite-s*x partners.

Not one gene but many
What we found is that there is no one “gay gene” – instead, there are many, many genes that influence a person’s likelihood of having had same-s*x partners.

Individually, each of these genes has only a very small effect, but their combined effect is substantial. We could be statistically confident about five specific DNA locations; we could also tell with high confidence that there are hundreds or thousands of other locations that also play a role, although we couldn’t pinpoint where they all are.

Participants in the 23andMe data set answered questions not only about their s*xual behaviour, but also attraction and identity. Taking all the genetic effects in combination, we showed that the same genes underlie variation in same-s*x s*xual behaviour, attraction, and identity.

Some of the genes that we could be sure about gave us clues about the biological underpinnings of s*xual preference. One of those genes, as well as being associated with same-s*x s*xual behaviour in men, was also associated with male pattern balding. It is also near a gene involved in s*xual differentiation – the process of masculinisation and feminisation of biological males and females, respectively. S*x hormones are involved in both baldness and s*xual differentiation, so our finding implies that s*x hormones may be involved in s*xual preference too.

Other findings further reinforced the extreme complexity of the biology underlying s*xual preference. First, genetic influences only partly overlapped in males and females, suggesting the biology of same-s*x behaviour is different in males and females.

Second, we established that, on the genetic level, there is no single continuum from gay to straight. What’s more likely is that there are genes that predispose to same-s*x attraction and genes that predispose to opposite-s*x attraction, and these vary independently.

Because of the complexity of the genetic influences, we cannot meaningfully predict a person’s s*xual preference from their DNA – nor was this our aim.

Possible misinterpretations
Scientific findings are often complex, and it is easy for them to be misrepresented in the media. S*xual preference has a long history of controversy and public misunderstanding, so it is especially important to convey a nuanced and accurate picture of our results.

But people tend to want black-and-white answers about complex issues. Accordingly, people may react to our findings by saying either: “No gay gene? I guess it’s not genetic after all!” or “Many genes? I suppose s*xual preference is genetically fixed!” Both of these interpretations are wrong.

Read more: Differences between men and women are more than the sum of their genes

S*xual preference is influenced by genes but not determined by them. Even genetically identical twins often have completely different s*xual preferences. We have little idea, though, what the non-genetic influences are, and our results say nothing about this.

To answer further questions the public might have about the study, we created a website with answers to frequently asked questions, and an explanatory video. In developing this website we drew on feedback from LGBTQ outreach and advocacy groups, dozens of LGBTQ rights advocates and community members, and workshops arranged by Sense about Science where representatives of the public, activists, and researchers discussed the results of the study.
___________________________________________________
published under fair use

The largest study of its kind - comparing the genetic sequences of almost half a million people - has revealed many different parts of our genetic code that seem to influence same-s*x s*xual behaviour.

PRIDE NOT PREJUDICE
22/07/2020

PRIDE NOT PREJUDICE

Interviews with asylum seekers reveal why the Home Office rejects so many LGBT claimsAlarming numbers of LGBTQ asylum cl...
21/07/2020

Interviews with asylum seekers reveal why the Home Office rejects so many LGBT claims
Alarming numbers of LGBTQ asylum claims are being rejected by the UK Home Office, according to recently published figures. This comes off the back of a spate of media coverage drawing attention to the injustices many individuals face when seeking asylum on the basis of their s*xual identity.

Academics have long noted a culture of disbelief and denial within the Home Office, with decision-makers being predisposed to disbelieve claimants. The culture of denial is particularly pronounced with respect to s*xuality claims. Those claiming asylum on the basis of their s*xual identity are often unable to provide objective evidence of that identity, leaving their claims to rest upon whether or not the decision-maker finds their account credible.

As part of my research, I have been interviewing individuals who have successfully sought asylum in the UK on the basis of their s*xual identity. Their stories reveal a number of things about Home Office culture.

S*xual identity
Over recent years, there has been a drive from the Home Office to understand s*xuality within asylum claims as a matter of identity, rather than conduct. This follows a decision of the European Court of Justice and is now reflected in Home Office asylum policy. This is a victory for the dignity of asylum seekers and has curtailed cases of asylum seekers being required to submit s*xually explicit evidence.

But the focus on identity raises new concerns. For example, Abdullah* a 29-year-old Omani refugee told me that:

I never really identified with my s*xuality. I recognised my s*xuality, I accepted it, I was okay with it. I even lived with it. But the thing is, here is where it gets more complicated, identity is a very difficult word to identify. In every culture there is a certain set of values that are associated with identity.

He went on to say that, in countries such as Oman, identity was associated only with one’s faith group, tribe or nationality. In other words, in countries where s*xuality is not viewed in terms of identity, but in terms of attraction or behaviour, asylum seekers may not be able to understand or articulate their experiences in terms of identity. This can lead to claimants being disbelieved because their focus is not seen as “credible” in Western terms.

These contrasting conceptions of identity were also present in the words of Masani, a 27-year-old Ugandan refugee, who told me:

I can understand how here, or in places where you are protected, people might want to create an identity around what they do, but to assume that just because someone is fleeing a country due to their s*xual interest this must be an identity that means all these different things is just wrong.

The problem these narratives demonstrate is striking. What exactly is s*xual identity? In the UK context, s*xual and gender minorities have come to be understood in terms of identity, with rights framed around stable ideas of being le***an, gay, bis*xual or transgender (LGBT). But for people growing up in other contexts, identities are unlikely to be so stable. As Babu, a 32-year-old Egyptian refugee, told me, this is largely due to the limited opportunities asylum seekers may have to meet with other s*xual minorities or access information about s*xual minorities.

If the UK is to genuinely recognise s*xual minorities in a manner compatible with the Refugee Convention, decision-makers must recognise the role of culture in shaping one’s s*xual identity (or non-identity) and note that individuals from different cultures may not present a narrative consistent with Western conceptions.

A spectrum
Another issue is the prevalent notion within both the Home Office and British society more broadly that s*xual identity is fixed. This presents a particular problem for s*xual minority women. Masani told me that as she was married before fleeing Uganda, she had been disbelieved:

Back in Uganda, I was forced to marry. I had no choice because if I had refused then my s*xuality would have been suspected. But when I came here they said I was not a le***an because I had been married. The letter made it sound so simple, you had a husband back in Uganda, therefore it is not credible that you are a le***an.

Although Masani was later granted asylum on appeal, this story shows that those claiming asylum on the basis of s*xual identity are often expected to present a fixed identity, in which the complexities of life must be set aside.

Similarly, Abasi, a 28-year-old Egyptian refugee, told me how although he felt that q***r identity “is more than just being gay or le***an 
 it’s a spectrum”, he felt he had to simplify things for the Home Office. To them, he “just kept it standard”. On the advice of lawyers, he pretended to be “straightforwardly” gay because he was warned that demonstrating s*xual fluidity would mean his claim was seen as inauthentic.

These examples demonstrate how current practice fails to recognise the diverse and fluid nature of s*xuality. In part, the Home Office’s culture of denial emerges from a rigid and fixed conception of identity.

These problems were also present in the much publicised case of Aderonke Apata, who during her 13 year struggle to be recognise as a refugee was once told by a lawyer representing the Home Office: “You can’t be heteros*xual one day, and le***an the next.”

Stereotypes
It’s also important to note the prevalence of stereotypes within attempts to determine the s*xual identity of claimants. Despite being clearly prohibited by Home Office asylum policy, stereotypes continue to play a role as evidence in claims. This is because those seeking asylum are often unable to provide external evidence to corroborate their claims.

This means that decision-makers may look for other forms of “evidence”, such as photos taken at pride parades or LGBT spaces. For example, Chatuluka, a 33-year-old Egyptian refugee, described how his lawyer encouraged him to attend “gay spaces” and take photographs to prove it. This expectation is stereotypical, linking same-s*x attraction to party culture and attendance of specific types of events.

Abeo, a 44-year-old Nigerian refugee, even went so far as to describe the stereotyping he experienced at the hands of the Home Office as an attempt to humiliate him. He told me that one of the first things the interviewer said to him was: “You don’t look gay, you look like any other man, why should I believe that you are?” The idea that there is any way in which an individual can “look gay” is an offensive reliance on narrow stereotypes of what it means to be LGBT.

As recent media coverage regarding an asylum seeker rejected for lacking a gay demeanour has shown, stereotypes continue to figure greatly in how Home Office decision-makers and immigration judges alike conceive of s*xual identity.

As all this suggests, the Home Office and justice system more broadly continue to hold very narrow conceptions of s*xual identities. This results in a disproportionate number of s*xual minority asylum claims ending in rejection, leaving those people at continued risk of persecution.
* All names have been changed to protect participants’ anonymity.

Author
Alex Powell
PhD Candidate, The City Law School, City, University of London
https://theconversation.com/interviews-with-asylum-seekers-reveal-why-the-home-office-rejects-so-many-lgbt-claims-122905

Why do caseworkers and immigration judges not believe that asylum seekers are gay?

Address


Telephone

+923434041420

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when New Bukhari Centre Piece Carpets & Interior /Break the boundaries posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to New Bukhari Centre Piece Carpets & Interior /Break the boundaries:

Videos

Shortcuts

  • Address
  • Telephone
  • Alerts
  • Contact The Business
  • Videos
  • Claim ownership or report listing
  • Want your business to be the top-listed Media Company?

Share